The Hon'ble Delhi High Court, in a landmark judgment delivered on 3rd November 2025 has ruled that "No student enrolled in any recognized law college, university or institution in India shall be detained from taking examinations or prevented from further academic pursuits or career progression on the ground of lack of minimum attendance." Until now, attending 70 per cent of Classes was mandatory for law students, with a possible relaxation up to 65 per cent on medical grounds. This new decision marks a significant shift in the approach toward attendance in legal education.
The judgment provides a comprehensive and progressive reasoning:
A) University education begins for students at the prime time of their youth, where focus must be on academic excellence, coupled with holistic growth, which includes physical activities such as sports, extra-curricular activities such as dance, music, drama, art, as also building interpersonal relationships, social skills in preparation for a life that awaits them beyond the gates of the University.
B) Legal education does not merely require rote-learning or one-sided teaching. It has various dimensions to it, such as knowledge of law, practical application of the law as also implementation thereof. In order to obtain such holistic education, mere presence in classrooms is neither required, nor can be sufficient. The classroom education has to be coupled with practical training, knowledge of court systems, prison systems, legal aid, gaining practical experience through participation in moot courts, seminars, model parliament, debates, attending court hearings etc.
C) The NEP, 2020 envisages multidisciplinary study, online classes, as also increasing virtual participation of students and teachers. The crux of both, the NEP and the extant 2003 UGC Regulations is flexibility and not rigidity. It is common knowledge that in today's day and age, the manner in which education is imparted through online classes, public domain video tutorials, etc., encourages and enables a growing number of youths to conceptually understand through these modes of learning. Such learning is, in fact, sometimes even better than classroom learning.
While the reasoning appears well-considered, experience from over two decades of teaching law leads to some reservations about the practical implications. Not all absenteeism stems from self-directed or alternative learning. In most cases, students skip classes due to distractions that are now widespread in university culture, such as late-night parties, excessive screen time, smoking, and, in some cases, substance abuse. The mandatory attendance requirement has so far acted as a deterrent, keeping many students grounded and academically focused.
Removing that structure may encourage indiscipline among a section of students and gradually erode the seriousness of academic engagement, even among those who were previously regular. University students, especially in their late teens, are at an impressionable age. They can be easily influenced, and external temptations are abundant. Rules regarding attendance, hostel conduct, and examinations help maintain discipline and direction. Faculty members often counsel students to attend classes regularly, reminding them that inadequate attendance can lead to being barred from exams. This mechanism, though strict, instills punctuality and responsibility, the qualities that define success in every professional sphere.
The Court has suggested alternatives to punitive attendance measures such as online classes or additional assignments. While these are sound in theory, the question remains: Are we equipped to implement them effectively? Most law schools already face acute faculty shortages, with teachers overburdened by existing responsibilities. Expecting them to conduct extra online classes or monitor supplementary assignments may be unrealistic under current conditions. Moreover, with the rise of AI tools like ChatGPT and Copilot, students can now produce projects within minutes, often with limited personal effort or engagement.
The intent behind the Delhi High Court's judgment is undoubtedly noble, it seeks to modernize education and align it with evolving learning methods. However, the ground reality of Indian legal education demands caution. Before relaxing the requirement of mandatory attendance, institutions must first strengthen faculty quality, classroom engagement, and infrastructure to support flexible learning. Otherwise, the decision, though progressive in spirit, may unintentionally weaken the academic discipline and interactive learning that are essential to shaping competent, ethical, and responsible lawyers.